Possible Negligence by Executor Solicitor

Marcon

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Hoenir

Marcon said:

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Beneficaries aren't the solicitors clients. State of conflict is simply where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. 

50_Hertz

Hoenir said:

Marcon said:

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Beneficaries aren't the solicitors clients. State of conflict is simply where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. 

I'm finding this out. Being a beneficiary is a relatively powerless position in terms of taking them to task over their actions. To a large extent, the solicitor seems to have free rein. It's a useful lesson when choosing an executor.

A bit of good news, the legal insurance company are sounding positive at this very early stage. They say the bullet point summary indicates negligence on the part of the solicitor. At the request of the legal insurers, I have submitted a lot more detail and evidence today. I guess they'll sift through that and make a decision regarding taking the case on.

I'm not confident the solicitors are acting in the best interests of the estate. Since the uninsured water leak fiasco, their focus seems to have shifted towards limiting damage to their firm and, this is coming at the expense of the estate. I think it would be beneficial if they were removed as executors, but I understand this can be difficult and costly if they fight it.

BooJewels

@50_Hertz- glad that you've had a positive discussion with your insurers today - it has been my experience that they have an initial discussion to get an outline of your situation, then if they're happy that it comes under the cover they offer, they ask for more details - copies of documents etc. and they present this to the underwriters who decide on your odds of a successful outcome.  As you said, they only cover the case if it's over 51% chance of success.  If they've already asked for more details, I think you're perhaps already heading into that territory - I think they weed out weak cases quite early on.

As an anecdotal aside, we used ours twice for [successful] court cases and tribunals with former employers of my late husband.  In each case, the employer's solicitors seemed to treat ours with contempt, as they were 'only those freebie pseudo lawyers you get with your house insurance' (a comment to their client in an email we were mistakenly copied in on) and consequently didn't take them very seriously.  That proved to be a costly error of judgement, as at every turn they ran rings round the other party who just ended up looking like incompetent buffoons.  We got our hoped for outcome in each case. 

Having dealt with several legal firms lately in respect of estate property conveyancing (that I hired), whose standards were slapdash at best, the 'freebie insurance lawyers' were polished, competent and efficient and did everything we asked in a timely manner - they were head and shoulders above the lawyers I actually paid for.  So I hope you have a similar positive experience.

50_Hertz

BooJewels said:

@50_Hertz- glad that you've had a positive discussion with your insurers today - it has been my experience that they have an initial discussion to get an outline of your situation, then if they're happy that it comes under the cover they offer, they ask for more details - copies of documents etc. and they present this to the underwriters who decide on your odds of a successful outcome.  As you said, they only cover the case if it's over 51% chance of success.  If they've already asked for more details, I think you're perhaps already heading into that territory - I think they weed out weak cases quite early on.

As an anecdotal aside, we used ours twice for [successful] court cases and tribunals with former employers of my late husband.  In each case, the employer's solicitors seemed to treat ours with contempt, as they were 'only those freebie pseudo lawyers you get with your house insurance' (a comment to their client in an email we were mistakenly copied in on) and consequently didn't take them very seriously.  That proved to be a costly error of judgement, as at every turn they ran rings round the other party who just ended up looking like incompetent buffoons.  We got our hoped for outcome in each case. 

Having dealt with several legal firms lately in respect of estate property conveyancing (that I hired), whose standards were slapdash at best, the 'freebie insurance lawyers' were polished, competent and efficient and did everything we asked in a timely manner - they were head and shoulders above the lawyers I actually paid for.  So I hope you have a similar positive experience.

That's good to hear. The solicitors I am dealing with have a degree of arrogance about them. I see this as a good thing because it's a weakness on their part. 

I've never used legal insurance before, but I'm hoping the lawyers they use are good. My theory is  the insurers won't want to lose a case and have to pay out to cover legal costs. To reduce that risk, I'm hoping their lawyers have a good track record. It's a hope anyway. 

BooJewels

50_Hertz said:

BooJewels said:

@50_Hertz- glad that you've had a positive discussion with your insurers today - it has been my experience that they have an initial discussion to get an outline of your situation, then if they're happy that it comes under the cover they offer, they ask for more details - copies of documents etc. and they present this to the underwriters who decide on your odds of a successful outcome.  As you said, they only cover the case if it's over 51% chance of success.  If they've already asked for more details, I think you're perhaps already heading into that territory - I think they weed out weak cases quite early on.

As an anecdotal aside, we used ours twice for [successful] court cases and tribunals with former employers of my late husband.  In each case, the employer's solicitors seemed to treat ours with contempt, as they were 'only those freebie pseudo lawyers you get with your house insurance' (a comment to their client in an email we were mistakenly copied in on) and consequently didn't take them very seriously.  That proved to be a costly error of judgement, as at every turn they ran rings round the other party who just ended up looking like incompetent buffoons.  We got our hoped for outcome in each case. 

Having dealt with several legal firms lately in respect of estate property conveyancing (that I hired), whose standards were slapdash at best, the 'freebie insurance lawyers' were polished, competent and efficient and did everything we asked in a timely manner - they were head and shoulders above the lawyers I actually paid for.  So I hope you have a similar positive experience.

That's good to hear. The solicitors I am dealing with have a degree of arrogance about them. I see this as a good thing because it's a weakness on their part. 

I've never used legal insurance before, but I'm hoping the lawyers they use are good. My theory is  the insurers won't want to lose a case and have to pay out to cover legal costs. To reduce that risk, I'm hoping their lawyers have a good track record. It's a hope anyway. 

I'd tend to agree about the arrogance - I certainly wouldn't see it as a positive trait.  The former employer I mentioned was one of those that thought any act or display of decency and kindness was a sign of weakness.  Consequently he worked hard at being an arrogant brute - it came at quite a high price to him.  He also made the mistake, when my husband said he was considering legal action, of saying "you wouldn't dare".

I always had the idea that the insurance lawyers were rather more answerable to their powers that be, compared to maybe a single partner in an independent law firm.  They were a large organisation working for major insurers - although we were assigned a single solicitor and her assistant so it felt like the personal touch of dealing with a small firm.

Marcon

Hoenir said:

Marcon said:

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Beneficaries aren't the solicitors clients. State of conflict is simply where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. 

They can still complain, even if they aren't the client. See https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/helplines/practice-advice-service/q-and-as/what-should-i-do-if-i-receive-a-letter-of-complaint-from-someone-who-is-not-a-client#:~:text=Solicitors%20are%20generally%20only%20required,respect%20of%20complaints%20from%20beneficiaries. and note the comment:

Solicitors are generally only required to respond to complaints that have been made by their clients or prospective clients.

The main exception is in respect of complaints from beneficiaries.

Sea_Shell

50_Hertz said:

Hoenir said:

Marcon said:

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Beneficaries aren't the solicitors clients. State of conflict is simply where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. 

I'm finding this out. Being a beneficiary is a relatively powerless position in terms of taking them to task over their actions. To a large extent, the solicitor seems to have free rein. It's a useful lesson when choosing an executor.

A bit of good news, the legal insurance company are sounding positive at this very early stage. They say the bullet point summary indicates negligence on the part of the solicitor. At the request of the legal insurers, I have submitted a lot more detail and evidence today. I guess they'll sift through that and make a decision regarding taking the case on.

I'm not confident the solicitors are acting in the best interests of the estate. Since the uninsured water leak fiasco, their focus seems to have shifted towards limiting damage to their firm and, this is coming at the expense of the estate. I think it would be beneficial if they were removed as executors, but I understand this can be difficult and costly if they fight it.

@50_Hertz

Have you heard back from your Legal insurers yet?   Have they agreed that you have a case?

50_Hertz

Sea_Shell said:

50_Hertz said:

Hoenir said:

Marcon said:

50_Hertz said:

elsien said:

What reason have the solicitors given for not having complied with the insurance requirements? Was it them who took the insurance out?

Thelsien said:

The solicitors took out the policy. When asked, they said they have complied with the policy, but it doesn't include water escaping from a supply pipe. When I asked them why they hadn't isolated the supply, they refused to answer and suggested that I was looking for someone to blame for an accident. When challenged about it being an accident, they said that we were heading for a state of "conflict" whatever that means and they would have to cease cooperation with me.

What a cheek! I'd submit a formal complaint to the firm (the complaints procedure will be on their website).

Beneficaries aren't the solicitors clients. State of conflict is simply where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. 

I'm finding this out. Being a beneficiary is a relatively powerless position in terms of taking them to task over their actions. To a large extent, the solicitor seems to have free rein. It's a useful lesson when choosing an executor.

A bit of good news, the legal insurance company are sounding positive at this very early stage. They say the bullet point summary indicates negligence on the part of the solicitor. At the request of the legal insurers, I have submitted a lot more detail and evidence today. I guess they'll sift through that and make a decision regarding taking the case on.

I'm not confident the solicitors are acting in the best interests of the estate. Since the uninsured water leak fiasco, their focus seems to have shifted towards limiting damage to their firm and, this is coming at the expense of the estate. I think it would be beneficial if they were removed as executors, but I understand this can be difficult and costly if they fight it.

@50_Hertz

Have you heard back from your Legal insurers yet?   Have they agreed that you have a case?

Hi, I'm sorry for the delay responding. I have visiting family overseas.

Yes, I have heard back from the insurers. Sadly, I'm not covered for this situation.

The solicitor has proceeded to repair the house and stated she will charge the estate for the repairs.

She is still refusing to say what work has been done, and is refusing to disclose anything to do with the insurance policy, the terms and conditions and any correspondence from the insurers saying why they are refusing to accept the claim. I know she's been negligent, she knows she's been negligent and she knows that I know!

I have approached several firms of solicitors. They say we need the insurance documents and if the solicitor (executor) refuses, which they are, they estimate it could cost up to £9000 to get a court order forcing them to hand them over.

Unfortunately the law is such that these people are at liberty to use the corpses of our loved ones to hide under and evade scrutiny. It's a cautionary tale about appointing a firm of solicitors as your executor. when things go wrong, it's a nightmare.

I've not given up hope and have a few avenues to explore. Hopefully this will lead to something.

Grumpy_chap

50_Hertz said:

1) A friend left me his house in his will.

2) The will appointed a named firm of solicitors as the executors.

3) During December a water supply pipe froze,  burst and flooded the house.

4) Extensive damage has been caused. Very extensive.

5) The solicitor has informed me that the unoccupied property insurance policy, arranged by them, is refusing to pay out.

6) The insurer's reasons for non payment are; they don't pay for water escapes from supply pipes between October and April. The water should have been isolated and the system drained from October through to April. This is in the Ts & Cs, but the solicitor didn't comply with them, hence no payment.

7) The solicitors are proposing to carry out a cosmetic repair, and re-market the house. 

8) The solicitors have stated that the cosmetic repair and their (the solicitors) time handling this additional work will be charged to the estate. 

9) The plan at (8) will substantially devalue the house and substantially reduce the the residual after the repair and solicitor's additional fees have been paid.

50_Hertz said:

The solicitor has proceeded to repair the house and stated she will charge the estate for the repairs.

I have a "devils' advocate" question, but what loss has the OP suffered?

The OP inherited the house.
I assume, given the Solicitor (acting as Executor) undertook to market the house for sale, the specifics of the Will did not leave the house to the OP but the proceeds from the sale of the house.  Otherwise, the Solicitor (Executor) should, potentially, have transferred the house to the OP to do with as the OP wished.

The Solicitor (Executor) has not covered themselves with glory.
The house got damaged while being sold.
The costs of the repair were not covered by insurance so will be charged to the Estate.

The OP only says they inherited the house.
What else is in the Estate?  
Does the "residual value" (outside of all nominated bequests) have sufficient capacity to cover the costs of the repairs to the house?

It may be that the OP will still receive the house / value of the house.
The costs of repair to the house may be charged and reduce the "residual Estate" so the impact of all this is picked up by the Remaindermen, not the OP.